Ruh Roh, Michael....

[SiteWolf]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3134816

if guys supposedly getting off easier 'cause they're testifying against you get the high end of sentencing, what does that mean for you?!


[he says tongue in cheek knowing Vick's 'celebrity' will come into play]

[P562045]

I read a while ago that this judge is a no nonsense judge. I don't know if Vick will get the max five years but I would not be surprised if he does not serve that long even if he does gets a sentence that is that long by the judge.

The words good behavior just come to mind right now for some reason. There is also that little matter of Vick is going to be paying some pretty high restitution as well as him serving time in prison.

And no I am not saying these two factors should be factors in how long Vick is in prison but I would also not try to deny these two factors as well when it comes to how much of his actual sentence Vick will actually serve.

[parrotheadduff]

The judge is a certified dog lover. I think Vick gets at least 2.5.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by parrotheadduff

The judge is a certified dog lover. I think Vick gets at least 2.5.

This is nothing against your way of thinking but putting these two things together really bothers me just as much as the way people were reacting to this case before they even knew if Mr. Vick was involved or not.

The reason being should I really care about the judges own personal feelings about a case that he is deciding when it comes to how long someone should be in prison or not?

Why was this not mentioned more clearly from the start that the judge was a dog lover?

It may well be that people thought that this case would go to a jury because Mr. Vick would try to "dazzle" his way out of a conviction. But if people remember this was before we really knew how involved Mr. Vick really was and what charges he would actually be facing.

But now we have a judge that is a dog lover deciding how long a person should go to prison when we all know how these dogs were being treated and the reaction of society when it comes to the clear abuse of these animals even if Mr. Vick tried to get it out there he was not present at the time.

Talk about a perfect time to end my rant.

[rich76]

Peter....you make a valid point. However...it is MHO that our judicial system has gone WAY too soft over my lifetime. Nothing would please me more than to make an example out of this guy and show the youngsters of this country that bullshiznit like he got involed in will NOT be tolerated in any form or fashion. The liberal attitude and mindset of the majority of judges and juries need to be curtailed severely IMO. He has admitted his guilt...throw the proverbial book at him. Do your time Vick...show repentance and then I will forgive you and wish you well.

[P562045]

My main point was that should a person that is a dog lover be deciding how long someone should be going to prison because of the obvious emotions that this case brings up in the first place?

And I want others to really think about what I just said for themselves.

I am not saying that the judge will go out of his way to give Vick a longer sentence just because he is a dog lover or at least in my way of thinking I would hope not and that is my main point. I do not want this judge's decision on how long Mr. Vick should be in prison have any thing to do with how much he loves dogs or not but on the facts of this particular case that is all I am really saying.

I am perfectly fine with the judge throwing the book at Mr. Vick so to speak as long as the judge does it for the right reasons of this particular case and not because of the judge's own personal feelings about dogs that is all I am trying to say and I may have not been very clear in my last post.

As a person can tell this really bothers me because of what I have said in my last paragraph. I just hope the judge's reasons are good and solid when he makes his decision.

[SiteWolf]

well, it's a valid question.............because we all know that when selecting jurors they expect to be impartial, they certainly don't let likely biased/opinionated people onto them.............so the question would then be, why would the same not be true for judges.....

on the flip side........what percentage of judges would be eliminated if the question 'do you dislike animals, especially dogs' were answered in the affirmative?

[ocho cinco]

Its funny how quickly we are to judge people....

Really, right now its a mute(sp?) point.... I hope Mr. Vick gets what is fair.... Weather it be 18 months or 5 years in jail.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

on the flip side........what percentage of judges would be eliminated if the question 'do you dislike animals, especially dogs' were answered in the affirmative?

That is a very interesting question to me. So I guess that it would be just as hard to pick a jury when asking questions that go right to the heart of could they make a decision based only on the facts of the case in front of them and not on their own feelings on a particular case as when asking judges the same question as the members of a jury.

And on this people are really going to have to decide for themselves.

This is just very thought provoking for me. Even now I am thinking about what I originally said after the original comment about the judge being a dog lover. This just jumped out at me that I sure do hope the judge can make his decision based only on the facts of the case and not his own personal feelings about dogs. To be quite frank about this it really actually bothered me that I would even think something like that but there is no doubt in my mind just a little while ago that is exactly what I was thinking.

I just thought it was just worth mentioning once again that it does not really matter if it is a jury or a judge deciding a case they all need to keep there emotions somewhat in check when it comes to decisions that they have to make especially when it comes to the matter of how long a person should be going to prison.

I don't know if a jury in a federal case like this can say how long a sentence should be or if that is up to the judge or not?

And because of the very nature of this case I think it would be very difficult for people if they were a member of a jury or even a judge in this particular case to not let their emotions at least play somewhat of a role of why they came up with the decision they did. And to be quite frank again I don't really know if I could do that or not at this particular time which also scares me somewhat as well.

There are just a few things to think about with regards to this particular case right?

[parrotheadduff]

I think thats why they have "sentencing guidelines". The judge gets to use several tools including his own opinion to decide the sentence.